Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 10-NJB in New Jersey
Message-ID: <15832@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 91 23:40:41 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Lines: 24
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 11, Message 8 of 8


In article <15812@accuvax.nwu.edu> appears:

>I was visiting my parents over the holidays and found that for certain
>long distance _out of state_ calls they had found that using 10-NJB
>was less expensive than using either AT&T or their default carrier (ITT).

NJ Bell has a waiver to offer long distance service between
northeastern NJ and New York city, and between the Camden area and
Philadelphia.  NY Tel and Bell of PA have matching waivers the other
way.  I gather this is because at the time of the divestiture the
phone networks in those area were too heavily intertwined to allow
separation of local BOC and LD AT&T lines in time for LD service to be
handled the normal way.

Since then NJ Bell has realized that they can make money from those
two busy traffic corridors and has heavily promoted the service,
particularly to businesses where an appropriately programmed PBX can
insert the 10NJB automatically on the calls that NJB can handle.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl